Not exact matches
The epistemologist in me says that the human mind has rather low
standards of proof and always has, even the
scientific rationalists.
The primary criterion and
standard of evaluation
of scientific theory is evidence, not
proof.
«Public health professionals need to be aware that the «sound science» movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality
of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the
standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests
of their clients.»
Again, imagine what that appealing but ludicrous
standard — absolute
scientific proof of safety — would do if applied against most
of how we live our modern lives.
This is a quite disgraceful distortion
of scientific principles where the
standards of proof have been inverted and perverted.
Sopinka J. observed that this
standard of proof does not require
scientific certainty (ibid., at p. 328); Clements, at para. 9.